Antitheism?

[Cephus]

That just makes it non-scientific. Something being "harmful" means that, well plainly, harm is being done. Would you say that poets, artists, and authors live harmful lifestyles for the way they look at the world?

It makes it irrational. Irrationality is harmful. If poets, artists and authors are living their lives irrationally, then yes, their lifestyles are harmful. However, most are not, they simply write imaginary stories. They don't believe they are actually true.

Might as well stop being human, then.

Lots of humans need to grow the hell up, unfortunately.

 

[Cephus]

I am sure there are people who feel that way, I've heard Harris and Dawkins, and the like, and read their stuff. Curious though, should anti-religion necessarily equate to anti-theism? I mean does it make a difference that someone thinks something did or didn't start the universe?

Absolutely it does. Your beliefs inform your actions. If you believe absurd, irrational things, your actions are more likely to be absurd and irrational. Your beliefs affect how you think, how you vote, how you raise children and how you treat those around you. The more irrational you are, the worse it is for everyone around you.

 

[Cephus]

Anti-theists don't claim that religion was never useful. Simply that it is now frequently suspect.

I don't know that it was ever useful, just more understandable. There was a time when imaginary gods explained things that we didn't understand. Of course, they were always wrong and as we've found out the real answers more and more often, rational people ought to be giving up these silly beliefs because they are no longer valuable, except to people whose emotions override their intellect.

 

[icehorse]

Since anti-theism is, by definition, rejection of all of theism rather than a subset thereof, it follows that most anti-theists inevitably oppose concepts of deity that they're not even aware of.

I think there is a subtle strawman in this definition. As I've been saying on this thread, I feel there is enough about theism that's wrong, that it's appropriate to be against it in a general sense. That does NOT imply a rejection of all theism.

 

[icehorse]

I don't know that it was ever useful, just more understandable. There was a time when imaginary gods explained things that we didn't understand. Of course, they were always wrong and as we've found out the real answers more and more often, rational people ought to be giving up these silly beliefs because they are no longer valuable, except to people whose emotions override their intellect.

They were also a way to codify what little was known of science at the time. For example, in many scriptures there are rules about how to slaughter animals. This most probably had to do with conveying practices to reduce disease. So, for it's time, I'd say that aspect of religion was useful.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think there is a subtle strawman in this definition. As I've been saying on this thread, I feel there is enough about theism that's wrong, that it's appropriate to be against it in a general sense. That does NOT imply a rejection of all theism.

Unlike religion, theism in and of itself isn't clearly defined aside from certain mainstream types thereof. As I mentioned in my post, many people arrive at theism due to purely personal experiences. It doesn't seem possible to be an anti-theist in a general sense without opposing some of these subsets that the anti-theist couldn't possibly understand from his or her own perspective.

 

[Augustus]

What's your definition of antitheism and what are examples of these violent antitheists? Once again, I simply do not agree that history's fascists and/or totalitarians should be considered antitheists.

The belief that (certain types of) theism is harmful and can also be extended to opposition theistic religions as a whole. It usually forms part of a wider ideology (Humanist antitheism, Communist antitheism, etc) as beliefs don't exist in a vacuum in the real world.

The standard examples of certain factions of the French Revolution and most 20th C Communist regimes.

On what grounds should they not be considered antitheists?

 

[Augustus]

So, why do you think that?

Due to a wildly irrational, emotionally driven myopia by the looks of it...

 

[ADigitalArtist]

the point is that your view is internally inconsistent. I do not think you have a clear definition of bigotry.
This is what you need to back up. I said they believe the practice is harmful. You turned that into hatred. That is fine. No need to delve into a side tangent on what is harmful and what is hatred. We can use your equivalency and say then that you bear a hatred of tribalism, authoritarianism etc. I would imagine you feel bigotry is harmful as well. Thus, antitheism is harmful, thus you have a hatred of antitheism. Great. Now show how this is internally consistent.

I still think you're reading too far into what I said. I'm saying that saying 'hate the sin not the sinner' is usually a thinly veiled excuse to hate the sinner while saying you don't hate them. (I dont hate gays I just think homosexuality should be eliminated from public view.) And I feel the same is true of the antitheists that I meet most of the time. They say they hate the belief in gods but what they do is treat believers like crap, or really generalize or reduce what theism is to a narrow band of mostly Abrahamic orthodox or fundamentalist belief.
What's harmful is:
Generalizing theism and responding to theism as one single belief. Not attempting to communicate with theists as to what their belief is, before saying 'you believe x.'
Attempting to force religious removal similarly to totalitarian secular regimes.

I think it's profoundly short sighted to believe the world would be a better place without religion, but that's not what I'm talking about with bigotry.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Counter productive to the well being of conscious creatures.

Only... not always. Many religions actively looks out for the wellbeing of others - even non-sentient creatures. They donate without pomp, requirement, or expectation of a filled pew.

Again, in general when one criticizes a group, linguistic shorthand is the norm.

Only in this case, the "linguistic shorthand" tends more to be an unnecessary - and even ignorant - application of stereotype based on the experience of one religion. It would be like saying "Politicians promote small government" when your only exposure is to Republicans.

Anti-theism is based on evidence.

What evidence?

anti-theism is about as logical as a stance can be.

How do you figure?

God/s is/are extremely powerful, of course.

No, not really. In fact many mythologies tell of shortcomings that the gods had.

It makes it irrational. Irrationality is harmful.

No, it does not. And saying "irrationality is harmful" without any justification or example is useless and asinine.

If poets, artists and authors are living their lives irrationally, then yes, their lifestyles are harmful. However, most are not, they simply write imaginary stories.

What's the point of painting a picture--why not just take one? Why write a poem? It only promotes whimsy and fantasy. Why write fiction? It's not real, and serves no practical purpose. The harm is everywhere.

Lots of humans need to grow the hell up, unfortunately.

See, a good number of emotions are irrational. Several of our recreational activities are irrational. So acting like you're somehow better than humanity by saying that "lots need to grow the hell up" is, as with other examples of yours, practically useless.

 

[Deathbydefault]

No, not really. In fact many mythologies tell of shortcomings that the gods had.

I was speaking in relation to humans, of course.
I am well aware that not every god can extinguish and ignite a star with a snap of their fingers, or fart out a stabilized universe that can harbor life.

 

[JustWondering]

First of all, tons of evidence and arguments have been presented over the decades, many quite valid and plausible. Just because you disagree with the evidence doesn't mean you can say it does not exist. Once again we see Antitheism as an irrational, dogmatic position.

1. What evidence?!!

2. How is demanding evidence before accepting a claim irrational?

3. I am perfectly fine with changing my position if someone can provide me good enough reason and evidence to do so. Which is the OPPOSITE of dogmatic.

 

[Willamena]

Anti-theism is based on evidence. Your definition starts to veer towards when people who are critical of Islam are called islamophobic.

Now we all have biases, but anti-theism is about as logical as a stance can be.

I meant that the instance of imaging that an ideology, a collection of ideas, could be harmful is an expression of fear.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I was speaking in relation to humans, of course.

Even in relation to humans, there are many tales of people outwitting or outperforming the gods.

 

[icehorse]

I meant that the instance of imaging that an ideology, a collection of ideas, could be harmful is an expression of fear.

I'm not personally afraid, I'm afraid of its impact on society.

 

[icehorse]

The standard examples of certain factions of the French Revolution and most 20th C Communist regimes.

On what grounds should they not be considered antitheists?

All of the anti-theists I know or know if are anti-dogma. Fascists are usually pro-dogma, their own flavor of dogma.

 

[icehorse]

Only in this case, the "linguistic shorthand" tends more to be an unnecessary - and even ignorant - application of stereotype based on the experience of one religion. It would be like saying "Politicians promote small government" when your only exposure is to Republicans.

I feel that Christianity and Islam - at a minimum - are worthy of harsh criticism. Hinduism to a lesser degree. As I have said several times on this thread, I'm not making a black and white claim. I'm not too worried about Jains or the Amish, for example.

Christianity and Islam are the two biggest theistic religions correct? Between them they probably account for more than 50% of all the world's theists. If I feel that both religions are now negative forces in society, I don't think it's ignorant (as you say), to be an anti-theist.

 

[1137]

1. What evidence?!!

What a joke, even the most basic cosmological arguments are based on the empirical evidence supporting cause and effect.

2. How is demanding evidence before accepting a claim irrational?

Can you quote where I say this, or are you intentionally violating RF rules?

3. I am perfectly fine with changing my position if someone can provide me good enough reason and evidence to do so. Which is the OPPOSITE of dogmatic.

Everyone claims this.

 

[icehorse]

How do you figure?

(you said in response to my claim that anti-theism was a logical stance):

Over the last 1400 years or so Christianity and Islam EACH have about 200-300 million murders committed in their names by their adherents. They both - to differing degrees - promote "us vs. them" mentalities. They both claim moral expertise and yet repeatedly demonstrate poor morals. I can go on. It is quite logical to be highly critical of these sets of ideas. It is quite logical to conclude that for a group of people to believe that THEY have the "correct" god, and that their neighbors believe in the "wrong" god, problems will ensue.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I feel that Christianity and Islam - at a minimum - are worthy of harsh criticism.

And I would agree. Yet this ties into what I've said a few times, where most antitheists that I've encountered are really anti-Abrahamic, but they still project it out to all of theism and theists until pressed.

Christianity and Islam are the two biggest theistic religions correct? Between them they probably account for more than 50% of all the world's theists.

Which is why if I said that if you're going off population, you've somewhat of an understandable case. But in being against theism, you are setting yourself up against the various religions themselves, of which Christianity and Islam are only 2.

I don't think it's ignorant (as you say), to be an anti-theist.

Only that's not what I said. I said that the linguistic "shorthand" of saying "all theists" or "all theism" but really meaning only a few can be ignorant. And it can. How can an antitheist really say that all theists and all systems of theism are "harmful/dangerous/violent/etc" when they don't know all the systems and theists? Broad-brushing to every believer in any god and their system based off two examples or 50% of the population is ignorant.

Over the last 1400 years or so Christianity and Islam EACH have about 200-300 million murders committed in their names by their adherents.

Okay, so this is an example of how Christianity and Islam have been violent systems over the past millennium and an half. Fantastic. How does that justify anti-theism being logical? How do you go from "Christianity and Islam are bad" to "Scrap all religions and belief in god"? Because again, antitheism by it's very word structure is not "critical of theism." It is "against theism". Are you anti-Abrahamic? Or anti-theist?